Hillary Clinton Uses Personal Email for State Business

[hog88]

How many years of hearings did they have when 241 Americans were killed in Beirut?

If Benghazi is the model we should be holding them until at least 2163.

How many versions of what happened did the White House come out with?

 

[hog88]

I just wish there was as much diligence towards all deaths as there is towards these four. It seems we get selective with looking into when people die and finding out the reasons behind said death. Our government has been full of incompetent decisions leading to deaths - mainly to the conflicts we get involved with. Seeing the amount of soldiers who have died in these adventures over the past 15-20 years, have we been as thorough in investigating all of those as well?

How many of those involved in sending soldiers to these conflicts are running for POTUS?

 

[Grand Vol]

How many years of hearings did they have when 241 Americans were killed in Beirut?

If Benghazi is the model we should be holding them until at least 2163.

How much did Reagan conceal from Congress about Beirut?

And furthermore, when did Congress ever open hearings into the attack?

And last, but certainly not least, how many times did Reagan tell a bold faced lie to the American People and continue telling it even after the truth had come out?

 

[hog88]

How much did Reagan conceal from Congress about Beirut?

And furthermore, when did Congress ever open hearings into the attack?

And last, but certainly not least, how many times did Reagan tell a bold faced lie to the American People and continue telling it even after the truth had come out?

Come on GV, none of that matters. It's the playbook, when confronted throw out Bush and when back to the wall bring up Reagan.

 

[Grand Vol]

Come on GV, none of that matters. It's the playbook, when confronted throw out Bush and when back to the wall bring up Reagan.

I'm waiting on Iran-Contra to get tossed out here at some point.

 

[1972 Grad]

I'm waiting on Iran-Contra to get tossed out here at some point.

Most liberals are too young to remember that. They will have to google it.

 

[hog88]

I'm waiting on Iran-Contra to get tossed out here at some point.

It will before it's all over.

There is no ****ing personal responsibility required to be a Democrat.

 

[CSpindizzy]

You do bring a valid point here. But I'll also counter with the question of how many of those deaths were lied about constantly until the pressure became so great that the lie wouldn't stick? Iraq? Afghanistan? Did Congress not approve military action in both those cases? Perhaps on flawed intelligence or even a lie, but it's not like the Bush Administration deleted the intelligence about it. Overstated would be a more likely term to use.

Now we have Benghazi getting blamed on a YouTube video? C'mon. And it's not the lie, or unfounded intelligence as a minimum, it's the fact they stuck with it even when it was shown that it was unfounded. And the efforts to conceal the truth? The fact that when it was going on, there was credible intelligence that suggested otherwise? Or the fact that the President decided it was better to pack for a fundraiser (since we're on that topic) rather than go to the situation room and get updates. And the fact that no rescue was even attempted even though the assets were in place for a potential extraction.

Now we have a personal email server that was used by a sitting SecState for various purposes that's suddenly wiped clean of potential evidence? I can't buy it from the IRS and I won't buy it from the Department of State. It's way, way, way too convenient that emails that are supposed to be public record suddenly disappear in the government this day in age. And furthermore, emails that could potentially incriminate higher level government employees are suddenly, and suspiciously, disappearing and getting "deleted."

I know you're smarter than this. And I would hope you can see the bigger picture here. This isn't about fundraising although it hasn't hurt anyone involved at the moment. It's about the most transparent Administration in history continuing to mislead, lie, delete and otherwise conceal the truth from the People.

And it really does get old after a while...

Smarter than this? Forgive me for wishing for an equal standard in government dealing with actions that send soldiers and even civilians in harms way. Because Congress votes for something is even more reason for them to hold the issues to a higher standard. If you put your name down on a vote approving military action you better make darn sure the reason and the substance behind it is sound. This little cheap attitude of 'the previous admin did this' and 'the other party voted for this' is no excuse. Since you bring up Iraq, I can care less whether the Dems voted for or against it. The whole issue was an administration beating war drums on false, incomplete, and inaccurate intel. The prize was bin Laden and the Taliban. We took our eyes off of that prize for a war we STILL are paying for and will probably be dealing with the consequences for decades. Democrats went along with this nonsense because of the whole war drum patriotic flag waving attitude that if you did not support it, you were unpatriotic and a traitor.

I don't care about most transparent. I would hope that ANY Congress and ANY party would do its job regardless. Fact is the same people sitting there going after Hillary declaring a search for the truth have been the same ones sitting on previous questions. You're right. This is getting old. It is really old to see both sides ignoring their side's faults and taking advantage of power and responsibility going after the other party. It really is old to see people who claim to be about truth, honesty and integrity who have overlooked so many other far worse issues. Since you did bring up Iraq, we had an administration that gave a Secretary of State questionable and inaccurate information selling war. This admin's party rammed through pushing this war in Congress. The idiot Dems who supported it failed in their part simply out of fear of the mood of the country. Result? Thousands of dead and tens of thousands of injured. Not to mention well over a decade of a complete breakdown in the entire region because of the actions there. You had a Senate committee investigating intel failures. This partisan committee found some faults but buried the continued mandate to go further for another few years and even then nothing came of the situation.

So if I am smarter than holding ALL accountable for stupid deaths, please spell it out for me. I'd like to think I am smart for asking that both parties cared enough about those in uniform to look into any and all issues causing soldiers to be placed in harms way. When I see posturing, flag waving, and calls for integrity by the same people burying previous investigations and efforts in investigations, I will call them out. Like I said, the same effort I see poured into these four guys' deaths...it would have been nice to see that apply to Iraq, current actions in other areas of the world, etc. Four guys dying is horrible. Thousands dying? What about them? What about all future actions? Will Gowdy be as thorough under a Republican administration? What about if that White House put severe pressure on him? Give me some consistency. Show me this is not some 15 minutes of fame or a great means to get votes and make a quick buck on fundraising.

 

[CSpindizzy]

How many of those involved in sending soldiers to these conflicts are running for POTUS?

Who cares? Are you cheapening this based on people running for higher office? If it happened I don't care what they run for in the future? Are you implying this is the only reason it matters? You have people in office running for re-election off this crap and previous issues. I don't see the same scrutiny off of it.

 

[lawgator1]

So, the Committee's deadline came and went, and Hillary turned over no new documents, and reported that the server had been completely wiped.



So we'll just have to take Hillary's word that she turned everything over. After all, there is no evidence that she withheld anything, and given that the documents were in her sole possession, no one would know better than her whether or not she provided everything.

You know, I find it very telling the way that Gowdy and Fox are twisting the comment about when it was wiped clean to be "after she was asked for" ..... and then you hear it put differently, mischaracterized really, by the GOP and Fox to imply she wiped it clean recently, only after it became an issue.

In reality, the request from State was for all public records. In her view, she had done so long before then as to emails, anyway. So what you have it the phraseology that is not conducive to the GOP's effort to make this seem like shennanigans, so they twist it, to make it seem like it happened after first asked about it very recently.

So they'll get some headlines by lying about it and twisting it. But its more of the same.

 

[lawgator1]

I'm waiting on Iran-Contra to get tossed out here at some point.

The GOP, still smarting 40 years later over Nixon, have already been likening this to Watergate. Idiots.

 

[hog88]

Who cares? Are you cheapening this based on people running for higher office? If it happened I don't care what they run for in the future? Are you implying this is the only reason it matters? You have people in office running for re-election off this crap and previous issues. I don't see the same scrutiny off of it.

Let's have a 100% top to bottom review of all personal email accounts from POTUS, his cabinet, Senators and House members.

Prosecute the ones who cannot prove they turned over or produce 100% of every work email sent using a private source. I'm game.

 

[37L1]

So they'll get some headlines by lying about it and twisting it. But its more of the same.

Right out of the Clinton playbook. . . .

 

[hog88]

You know, I find it very telling the way that Gowdy and Fox are twisting the comment about when it was wiped clean to be "after she was asked for" ..... and then you hear it put differently, mischaracterized really, by the GOP and Fox to imply she wiped it clean recently, only after it became an issue.

In reality, the request from State was for all public records. In her view, she had done so long before then as to emails, anyway. So what you have it the phraseology that is not conducive to the GOP's effort to make this seem like shennanigans, so they twist it, to make it seem like it happened after first asked about it very recently.

So they'll get some headlines by lying about it and twisting it. But its more of the same.

Easy way for her to put this to bed and rub in the Rs face. Turn over the server and all associated equipment.

 

[lawgator1]

Right out of the Clinton playbook. . . .

Helpful.

 

[lawgator1]

Easy way for her to put this to bed and rub in the Rs face. Turn over the server and all associated equipment.

I've already said I would support that ... depending on the specific terms of how it would be examined, and by whom.

Her problem is that she knows that if she agrees to that, then the GOP will want to search it for far more than is rationally related to their criticism. In fact, they really don't care about that, they just like insinuating that there was something gravely wrong done.

So in their playbook she's damned if she does agree, damned if she doesn't agree. And in fact the more she disagrees, the better it is for them on Fox because they can just rely on speculation, rather than fact.

 

[hog88]

I've already said I would support that ... depending on the specific terms of how it would be examined, and by whom.

Her problem is that she knows that if she agrees to that, then the GOP will want to search it for far more than is rationally related to their criticism. In fact, they really don't care about that, they just like insinuating that there was something gravely wrong done.

So in their playbook she's damned if she does agree, damned if she doesn't agree. And in fact the more she disagrees, the better it is for them on Fox because they can just rely on speculation, rather than fact.

She should not have been using a private server and email account, the odious is 100% on her to prove she handed over all work related emails. She lost her right to privacy with the server when she decided to use it. So if she's got nothing to hide, comply with the subpena and turn it over.

 

[lawgator1]

She should not have been using a private server and email account, the odious is 100% on her to prove she handed over all work related emails. She lost her right to privacy with the server when she decided to use it. So if she's got nothing to hide, comply with the subpena and turn it over.

I do not disagree that it was a mistake to use the private email server just because it created the opportunity for people to question it.

I actually can see how it would happen, given their respective positions in the world, and so don't fault them at that basic level. But yes, once she was SoS, she should have switched. I doubt it even occurred to her and her team that it was an issue, at the time, and so that's on them.

Your claim that she forfeited her right to anything private on the server as a result, however, is patently ridiculous.

 

[Grand Vol]

The GOP, still smarting 40 years later over Nixon, have already been likening this to Watergate. Idiots.

Really?

I know you're not that smart, but really?

 

[hog88]

I do not disagree that it was a mistake to use the private email server just because it created the opportunity for people to question it.

I actually can see how it would happen, given their respective positions in the world, and so don't fault them at that basic level. But yes, once she was SoS, she should have switched. I doubt it even occurred to her and her team that it was an issue, at the time, and so that's on them.

Your claim that she forfeited her right to anything private on the server as a result, however, is patently ridiculous.

If it didn't occur to her that it could be an issue she is too short sighted and conceited to be POTUS.

She absolutely forfeited her privacy the day the server was subpenaed, every single citizen in this country not named Clinton would already have had it seized.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Let's have a 100% top to bottom review of all personal email accounts from POTUS, his cabinet, Senators and House members.

Prosecute the ones who cannot prove they turned over or produce 100% of every work email sent using a private source. I'm game.

Like I said, doubt that would ever happen. This loophole has been exploited, people have been caught, and nothing was done to close it. Republicans were caught. Dems did nothing but investigate and nothing changed. Now the flipflop of this happened. This is all just posturing and show because both sides take advantage and they are the ones calling the shots.

 

[utvolpj]

I do not disagree that it was a mistake to use the private email server just because it created the opportunity for people to question it.

I actually can see how it would happen, given their respective positions in the world, and so don't fault them at that basic level. But yes, once she was SoS, she should have switched. I doubt it even occurred to her and her team that it was an issue, at the time, and so that's on them.

Your claim that she forfeited her right to anything private on the server as a result, however, is patently ridiculous.

This post is completely absurd. It's like you're not even trying anymore

 

[lawgator1]

Really?

I know you're not that smart, but really?

Absolutely.

Nixon was aware of and authorized criminal activity for domestic political spying, then assisted in covering that up.

The whining about Clinton is that she did not do enough, generally, to prevent Benghazi when warning signs were present.

The former was blatantly criminal. The latter, even if it were true, would not come even close to that.

If it didn't occur to her that it could be an issue she is too short sighted and conceited to be POTUS.

She absolutely forfeited her privacy the day the server was subpenaed, every single citizen in this country not named Clinton would already have had it seized.

Ok, you can make your argument that it was a mistake and that's a reason not to vote for her.

The claim that anyone else would have to forfeit their computer is just laughable.

This post is completely absurd. It's like you're not even trying anymore

I do not agree.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I do not disagree that it was a mistake to use the private email server just because it created the opportunity for people to question it.

I actually can see how it would happen, given their respective positions in the world, and so don't fault them at that basic level. But yes, once she was SoS, she should have switched. I doubt it even occurred to her and her team that it was an issue, at the time, and so that's on them.

Your claim that she forfeited her right to anything private on the server as a result, however, is patently ridiculous.

When it comes to work related emails and communications, she absolutely forfeited that right.

She is free to have a private email to setup her daughter's wedding, photos of the grandchild, etc. But that is a far cry from the Secretary of State capacity.

There is no reason that you, Mrs. Clinton, or other defenders of her on this issue can't differentiate between the two.

 

[1972 Grad]

When it comes to work related emails and communications, she absolutely forfeited that right.

She is free to have a private email to setup her daughter's wedding, photos of the grandchild, etc. But that is a far cry from the Secretary of State capacity.

There is no reason that you, Mrs. Clinton, or other defenders of her on this issue can't differentiate between the two.

There is a very good reason that they can't differentiate between the two. It is called blind allegiance to a political philosophy and party. I once supported Nixon. Actually, he doesn't look bad in retrospect compared to Obama and the Clintons.